[Strauss] wrote about (if interpreted esoterically, as his disciples certainly did) the necessity and goodness of the wise and strong to lie to and manipulate the masses- that is at the base of the conspiracy.

0 for 2 on Strauss. Strauss wrote about the philosophers and their need to disguise some of their thoughts in their work to avoid religious and political persecution. His works are about revealing the true expressions of the philosophers, they are not about cloaking them in obscurity or conspiracy. The philosophers left clues and Strauss enjoyed following them and revealing them. Yes, Strauss was esoteric. He was not a so-called public intellectual.

Quote:

But you know what? Never mind Strauss. What about the other names I mentioned? What about the rest of my post?

I refuse and decline to defend any of the others. The so-called Straussians are unworthy to bear the name. I might defend Bloom, if I cared enough. I read the Closing of the American Mind, and it was a fine read, but the danger of moral relativism has not borne out as much as he feared. It seems like a quaint book now.

Ersatz, if I can totally set aside so many of the beliefs I held ten years ago, surely you can trust me on Leo Strauss and acknowledge that adherents go astray and that every Jesus has its Paul (but in the case of Leo Strauss, there are just so many Pauls).

They're mad at Russia now. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia. I find it interesting and at this point funny that the Great Democracy of America can not rid itself of the Kagan clan. Bush + kagan -> Clinton + Kagan -> Bush2 + Kagan -> Obama + Kagan -> HRClinton + Kagan. Who is in charge, anyway?

They're mad at Russia now. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia. I find it interesting and at this point funny that the Great Democracy of America can not rid itself of the Kagan clan. Bush + kagan -> Clinton + Kagan -> Bush2 + Kagan -> Obama + Kagan -> HRClinton + Kagan. Who is in charge, anyway?

Hillary has sympathies for the neo-con worldview. There's no conspiracy here. She's just an example of how a bright person can lack wisdom.

Actually it looks like Turkey is not so strongly opposed to an independent Kurdistan. Erdoğan seems to have good relations with Kurdistan's president Barzani and an independent Kurdistan would have to depend a lot on cooperation with Turkey. We'll see if this survives the Turkish elections in August. The ultra nationalists are probably frothing at the mouth about it.

Someone brought up conscripts. Has Iraq re-imposed mandatory military service since it was suspended in 2014? I looked up two sources from 2013 that said they hadn't. I'm in Kurdistan which does not have it.

Although this time I do think air-dropping water/food was the right thing to do, and ISIS makes Saddam and the Taliban look pretty good in comparison.

I have two thoughts: 1) IF the stories of a looming genocide are true, I have no real opposition to killing heaps of Sunni idiots. However 2) the media has lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied to get the US into wars so god damn often that I doubt that (1) is true.

By the way, how much of a "crisis" is this, really? Are the Yazidis really about to be subjected to "genocide," as our hopped-up "journalists" insist? Why would ISIS murder 40,000 in cold blood? How is that going to advance their cause? Doesn’t seem like very good public relations.

In any case, the Yazidis face an ominous future under the rule of ISIS – but we should’ve thought of that before we empowered Iraq’s Sunni tribesmen during the so-called "Arab Awakening," arming, training, and bribing the very folks who are now welcoming ISIS with open arms. The victory of ISIS was made possible by the "surge," which John McCain has never stopped hailing as the high point of the war. That the same people who urged the "surge" are now demanding we save the Yazidis from the wrath of fanatic Sunnis is rich indeed. As they cry crocodile tears over the Yazidis’ alleged fate, one can only say: you should’ve thought of that before you started arming those "vetted" jihadist outfits who were going to overthrow Assad on our behalf – and instead went over to ISIS.

ISIS is using anti-aircraft and other heavy weaponry to outfight both the Iraqi army and the overrated Kurdish peshmerga. Those big guns, our journalists tell us, were stolen from Iraqi army arsenals when Mosul was overrun, but there’s good reason to believe they were armed by the US – when large sections of our "vetted" Syrian rebels went over to ISIS. Remember John Kerry praising the rebels to the skies during the congressional debate over intervening in Syria? And what about that mysterious ship that was supposed to take off from Benghazi around the same time as our Ambassador was killed by Libyan "freedom-fighters"? It was reportedly carrying a huge arms cache from Gaddafi’s looted arsenals. Those chickens are coming home to roost on the Yazidis’s doorstep.

The "humanitarians" in this administration, and amongst the neocons (!), are now pointing to the conquest by ISIS of the last Christian cities in Iraq as a reason why we need to go back to Iraq. That has got to be some gruesome joke, because when Christian cities in Syria were being overrun by US-supported Islamic rebels – the same ones who are now rampaging through Iraq – we heard not a peep from any of these people.

One might argue we have a moral obligation to get the Yazidis to safety because, after all, didn’t our actions place them in danger to begin with? This argument fails miserably, however, when we ask ourselves who is in the best position to actually do something to aid them. The Turks and Iraq’s other neighbors – and, yes, I mean Iran – are in a much better position to play the "savior" role than is Washington, for reasons that aren’t just geographical.

ISIS would like nothing better than to portray themselves as taking on the Americans: it would do wonders for their recruiting around the world. It would also unite Iraqi Sunnis under the banner of ISIS.

Ever since the "dead-enders" Donald Rumsfeld disdained beat the pants off the Americans and their Iraqi allies, our strategy in the region has been to tilt back toward the Sunnis in their religious war against the rival Shi’ites. From Libya to Egypt to Syria we sought to unite the Sunni jihadists against what we imagined was the main danger: Iran, the epicenter of Shi’ism. This tactic has backfired, and badly, in Iraq – and it isn’t just the Bush administration that bears the brunt of the blame. This was the strategic conception behind Hillary Clinton’s stewardship of the State Department, as implemented in Libya, Egypt, and Syria: she quit when her scheme to intervene in Syria was aborted.

Whatever action the President decides to take, it will be the first step down the slippery slope to full-scale US re-intervention in the region. You won’t stop ISIS with a few air strikes: you need people on the ground, and the Iraqi army – as we have seen – doesn’t cut it.

Will the present administration level with the American people, this time, and tell them the truth about what US "action" in Iraq will have to mean? Of course not. Lying comes as naturally to these people as slithering does to a snake.

It remains to be seen if this "humanitarian disaster" ploy is going to deceive the American people into giving Washington yet another blank check to "save" Iraq. My suspicion is that whatever emotional-laden hysteria the War Party succeeds in whipping up will be short-lived indeed: as soon as the people of this country see the same neocons telling us why we need to re-invade Iraq an awful feeling of deja-vu will overcome them – and Congress will be deluged with protest, just as they were when Obama decided he wanted to bomb Syria.

The sickening hypocrisy of the US bombing to "save" innocent civilians is doubly underscored by the fact that Washington not only stood by and watched as their Israeli masters allies slaughtered children and women in Gaza – they sent Tel Aviv a fresh supply of deadly weapons to carry out the pogrom. And Congress passed a resolution hailing the Israeli murder spree and declaring its unconditional support. So now we’re going to go back to Iraq to "save" the victims of our own policies?

A more revolting display of absolute moral bankruptcy would be hard to imagine. And yet there is a method in this madness….

Remember that the Kurds are Israel’s best – and only – allies in the region. Israeli trainers have been integrated into the pershmerga, and the first oil extracted from the newly-Kurdified regions of collapsing Iraq went straight to the Jewish state. As related on this episode of the Scott Horton Show, ISIS is at the gates of Irbil, the Kurdish regional government’s capital city. This is why we hear the War Party loudly demanding US military intervention – not to save the Yazidis, but to save a key Israeli ally.

As I said at the very outset of America’s misadventures in Iraq, the Iraq war was fought for Israel’s sake: our re-entry will repeat the same scenario. Their long-range plan of destabilizing the region – giving the Jewish state Lebensraum to expand and fulfill the old Zionist dream of a kingdom spanning the distance between the Nile and the Euphrates – is now entering phase two. Their amen corner is now demanding the US intervene. Will they succeed. Stay tuned to this space ….

UPDATE: It looks at the moment like the US is not bombing – yet (although there are reports the Turks are doing so) but President Obama has now authorized air strikes if ISIS gets any closer to Irbil, where US troops and diplomatic personnel are stationed. At present, the US is coordinating air-drops and US fighters are reportedly accompanying those air drops. This means there’s still time to stop the War Party in its tracks. Call your congressional representatives and tell them: we need to stay out of Iraq. Period. Be polite, but firm. We can’t let them get away with it again.

While USG won't admit it, ISIS is a creation of USG. Without American money and weapons to the Vetted Opposition in Syria, this would not have happened. On the one hard, this means USG is responsible for the chaos but on the other USG absolutely doesn't know what it is up to over there.

It simply is true that the Jewish State seeks to smash the whole region into a dysfunctional netherworld of violence and disorganization. It is true that USG is the hammer held by Israel. It is true that the liberal interventionists in USG are either crypto in their intentions or are being manipulated b/c they don't understand what is going on over there.

I do not trust the media, USG, "human rights groups" and "unnamed Administration officials" sufficiently to not call my Congressman from 10 different phones today.

I understand your skepticism and concern, but as long as it continues to be killing those Sunni idiots, as you aptly described them, by bombing, I don't care if Israel or some other entity benefits at ISIS' expense. Now if we send troops there, then yes, I will have a problem with US actions...

And yes, the USG bears some responsibility for this mess. Invading Iraq in 2003 has to be the worst foreign policy decision this country has made. I cannot think of anything comparable. Vietnam looks only mildly idiotic in comparison now.

I understand your skepticism and concern, but as long as it continues to be killing those Sunni idiots, as you aptly described them, by bombing, I don't care if Israel or some other entity benefits at ISIS' expense. Now if we send troops there, then yes, I will have a problem with US actions...

And yes, the USG bears some responsibility for this mess. Invading Iraq in 2003 has to be the worst foreign policy decision this country has made. I cannot think of anything comparable. Vietnam looks only mildly idiotic in comparison now.

I agree with the food and water airdrops, but I don't think anyone disagrees with this. If the media is correct about the threat to these people, and we can limit it to airstrikes, I'm probably ok with that. If anything, the Kurds and turkmen and others are the closest to 'good' guys in the region at this point. I wish there was some way to guarantee that we wouldn't be drawn in, but of course there isn't.

Interesting article, but it's Stephen Walt, so it says what you would expect it to.

Faced with this unpromising environment, what would be the sensible -- or dare I say realistic -- thing for the United States to do? The familiar answer is to say that it's an imperfect world and that we have no choice but to work with what we've got. We hold our noses, and cut deals with the least objectionable parties in the region. As Michael Corleone would say, it's not personal; it's strictly business.
But this view assumes that deep engagement with this troubled area is still critical to U.S. national interests, and further assumes the United States reaps net benefits from its recurrent meddling on behalf of its less-than-loyal partners. In other words, it assumes that these partnerships and deep U.S. engagement make Americans safer and more prosperous here at home. But given the current state of the region and the condition of most of our putative allies, that assumption is increasingly questionable.
In fact, most of the disputes and divisions that are currently roiling the region do not pose direct and mortal threats to vital U.S. interests. It is admittedly wrenching to watch what is happening in Syria or Gaza, or to Israel's democracy, but these events affect the lives of very few Americans directly. Unless, of course, we are foolish enough to throw ourselves back into the middle of the maelstrom.
Moreover, the Middle East today is riven by a series of overlapping conflicts along multiple fault lines, driven in good part by protracted government failures and exacerbated by misguided outside meddling. There's the division between Sunni and Shiite, of course, and between Islamists (of many different stripes) and traditional authoritarians (also of several different types). Add to that mix the conflicts along sectarian lines (as in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and elsewhere), and the recurring suspicions between Arabs and Persians. And don't forget the conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, which still reverberates throughout the Arab and Islamic world.

If you want to understand this problem, read Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer's books. I read them this summer for a research project and it was perhaps two of the most depressing things possible. I hope they both, especially Bremer, feel guilt and remorse every single day for what is going on now and what happened before, but I very much doubt they do.

This intervention is being sold on the premise that ISIL/ISIS/The Islamic State is the threat, when in fact its simply Iraq devolving into a civil war with more than two sides and ISIL/ISIS is just one army of the splintered Sunni faction. How are airstrikes supposed to solve that?

This intervention is being sold on the premise that ISIL/ISIS/The Islamic State is the threat, when in fact its simply Iraq devolving into a civil war with more than two sides and ISIL/ISIS is just one army of the splintered Sunni faction. How are airstrikes supposed to solve that?

I know that there is danger even in this, but I feel a lot more comfortable with air strikes to protect the Kurds than the in the rest of Iraq.